The Gender Non-binary debate.

[George Smiley]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

xjay1337 said:

You really are deluded.

And you really are utterly closed-minded.

I think the chance of a huge asteroid landing on my house and killing me are infinitesimally small. However, I can't categorically state it will never happen.

Certainly my preference is for it not to happen! I'd be silly to say that it was impossible for it to happen though.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 21st February 11:15

No, he is straight, this means he would never perform a sexual act with a man for sexual satisfaction/gratification - that's not closed minded that is just plain fact.

Am I closed minded because I would never perform a Mr Coolhands down the local stables? Am I closed minded because I wouldn't kiss Tubgirl after a party? No, I'm not into animals and I'm not into whatever the fk tubgirl did in the name of art.

There is simply no way on this or any other planet that you can call someone closed minded because they wouldn't want to dip their wick in someone of the same sex if they are not of the homo/pan/bi/trans/whatever label I missed persuasion.

If anything, you and 8.4L have shown the greatest level of closed minded blinkered views.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

George Smiley said:

No, he is straight, this means he would never perform a sexual act with a man for sexual satisfaction/gratification - that's not closed minded that is just plain fact.

Am I closed minded because I would never perform a Mr Coolhands down the local stables? Am I closed minded because I wouldn't kiss Tubgirl after a party? No, I'm not into animals and I'm not into whatever the fk tubgirl did in the name of art.

There is simply no way on this or any other planet that you can call someone closed minded because they wouldn't want to dip their wick in someone of the same sex if they are not of the homo/pan/bi/trans/whatever label I missed persuasion.

If anything, you and 8.4L have shown the greatest level of closed minded blinkered views.

[George Smiley]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Rivenink said:

When one has the concept of "never" in their mind, it is a prejudice. One has decided that based on one characteristic, everyone who has that characteristic is unacceptable; and that affects how one looks at those people. You will never look to see the unique beauty (or lack thereof) in a person, because you take that one characteristic and decide "no".

Exactly.

It's literally what the word means!

bks.

I have the concept of never having a sex with a man in my head, that does not make me homophobic. Because I would never cup your balls whilst undoing your bra doesn't make me transphobic, both just mean I am straight and wouldn't do anything other than a woman (and even then I have a level of criteria to be met).

[otolith]

8.4L 154 said:

Notice how they never engage with the real issue that is transphobic? That is when the preference criteria has been met as they are just about to get into bed or have just got out of bed and the whole attitude changes when the only difference is the knowledge of the girl just slept with is trans. Sexual preference does not play a part at that stage as everything was good before their transphobic brain got involved.

I think that's quite a reductive view of human sexuality - the idea that if their body looks female only some kind of bigot would back out on finding out that it's actually a surgically modified male body. I don't think that people's emotions are as subject to reason as this would require.

[j_4m]

8.4L 154 said:

Notice how they never engage with the real issue that is transphobic? That is when the preference criteria has been met as they are just about to get into bed or have just got out of bed and the whole attitude changes when the only difference is the knowledge of the girl just slept with is trans. Sexual preference does not play a part at that stage as everything was good before their transphobic brain got involved.

I did, several pages back.

Medical science cannot currently replicate a working vagina, which is a pretty large part of my sexual preference. Once they can then I'll reconsider my position.

otolith said:

I think that's quite a reductive view of human sexuality - the idea that if their body looks female only some kind of bigot would back out on finding out that it's actually a surgically modified male body. I don't think that people's emotions are as subject to reason as this would require.

And this is a very, very good point. I don't want to have sex with all women just because they've got tits and a fanny. It's also conceivable that I could initially be attracted to a woman and later find out something about her, physically or personably, which completely puts me off. Human sexuality is fickle.

Edited by j_4m on Thursday 21st February 11:44

[Clockwork Cupcake]

George Smiley said:

I have the concept of never having a sex with a man in my head, that does not make me homophobic.

Correct! Have a biscuit.

What would be homophobic would be if your reasons were homophobic. If they aren't, then you aren't homophobic. Congratulations!

[Clockwork Cupcake]

j_4m said:

Medical science cannot currently replicate a working vagina, which is a pretty large part of my sexual preference. Once they can then I'll reconsider my position.

And yet the Fleshlight exists. As do blow-up sex dolls. And some men use them.

I can't comment on the current state of medical science though. I was given to understand that reconstructive surgery was pretty good now.

Anyway, if your preferences are based purely on that, then that's completely fine. I would not consider that transphobic (as already stated).

[xjay1337]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

xjay1337 said:

You really are deluded.

And you really are utterly closed-minded.

I think the chance of a huge asteroid landing on my house and killing me are infinitesimally small. However, I can't categorically state it will never happen.

Certainly my preference is for it not to happen! I'd be silly to say that it was impossible for it to happen though.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 21st February 11:15

But your example is a load of crap, frankly. You are comparing apples with oranges.

An asteroid landing on your house is something that is out of your control. Insurers call things like that "acts of god".
However engaging in a relationship with something is not an "act of god", but a "free-will choice".
Ergo I can categorically state that I would never engage in an act with either a trans-woman or a male.

[InitialDave]

It does cycle back to being similar to the "it vs they" thing a few pages back.

Technically correct or not, labelling someone as phobic when they are completely ok in other people being who they are and doing what they do, but just say it's not for them, is not an approach that's going to get people on your side.

[j_4m]

The idea of putting my penis in a fleshlight creeps me out, looks too much like some kind of Chinese finger trap.

[otolith]

xjay1337 said:

Ergo I can categorically state that I would never engage in an act with either a trans-woman or a male.

^^ “knowingly”

[Clockwork Cupcake]

xjay1337 said:

But your example is a load of crap, frankly. You are comparing apples with oranges.

Well, if two school kids are comparing pack lunches, and ask each other what fruit they have, and one has an apple and the other has an orange, it is ok to compare apples to oranges there.

Ok, forget the example then. Just consider the statement "it is the underlying reasons for the preference that are germane, not the preference itself"

As I said, it's like
"Does this dress make my bum look big?
"No, it's your fat arse that makes your bum look big"

You're fixating on the dress, not the underlying reason.

(And please don't make some diversionary remark about dresses being trans and arses being gay. You know right well that wasn't my intent)

[The Surveyor]

j_4m said:

The Surveyor said:

Which is fine, but ignores any biological factors. "I've always known I was different", "I always preferred playing with my sisters toys", "I've always been a bit of a tom-boy" etc type statements are often used to explain individuals transgender journey. So whilst the 'sisters toys' and other traditional gender specific social influences are certainly present, the underlying tendency of being different (if that the right word) came well before that rather than being a product of it.

That's what I'm getting at

That there is some underlying biological drive for homosexuals to pursue same sex relationships, just as their is for transgender people to identify as the opposite sex. The social stuff is just a manifestation of this, but in turn feeds back into the process and reinforces it.

Does that not rule out the whole argument that 'gender' is driven by society and is different to 'sex' then? If transgender is a natural 'born that way' biological reality, why the need for the argument that gender is a social construct at all? Why do we need to add a separate definition of 'sex' and create a new 'gender non-binary' layer of thinking if being transgender is just as natural as homosexuality or heterosexuality?

[j_4m]

The Surveyor said:

Does that not rule out the whole argument that 'gender' is driven by society and is different to 'sex' then? If transgender is a natural 'born that way' biological reality, why the need for the argument that gender is a social construct at all? Why do we need to add a separate definition of 'sex' and create a new 'gender non-binary' layer of thinking if being transgender is just as natural as homosexuality or heterosexuality?

Because gender can both be driven by socialisation and biology, the two are not mutually exclusive. Sex, however, is purely a technical classification based on biology.

For example one of the clear biological differences between males and females is the ability for females to bear children. In a primitive society while a female carries the child and then nurses it someone has got to do the hunter-gathering, makes sense for that to be the males from a purely division of labour point of view. Now compound that with males typically being larger and stronger, more suited to the role of hunter. It doesn't take a huge amount of imagination to see how this can lead to the societal development of housewife and working husband, especially when for the majority of our history work has been manual and output directly related to physical capacity for work. Contrast to makeup. Where's the necessary biological impulse to drive women to wear makeup? Why didn't human males become the group that predominantly wears makeup?

[otolith]

The Surveyor said:

Does that not rule out the whole argument that 'gender' is driven by society and is different to 'sex' then? If transgender is a natural 'born that way' biological reality, why the need for the argument that gender is a social construct at all? Why do we need to add a separate definition of 'sex' and create a new 'gender non-binary' layer of thinking if being transgender is just as natural as homosexuality or heterosexuality?

I think I see what you are digging at.


So, in a society in which there are no fixed gender roles, in which men and women behave indistinguishably, and there was no way to "perform" gender, how could you know someone was transgender? How could being transgender be expressed? Therefore, if it doesn't mean anything in the absence of culture which recognises it, how can it be innate?

I think this is the line of argument followed by those feminists who say that transgenderism is damaging to the cause of erasing the patriarchy, that it reinforces the idea of rigid gender roles, and that trans people should simply live as men society would wrongly view as effeminate. That line of argument tends to come from the kind of people who reject any idea that stereotypical male and female behaviour has a biological origin, so they believe that all differences are down to socialisation and also find the suggestion that a brain can end up biologically a different sex to the rest of the body impossible because they don't believe there are any innate differences. They do this in the face of experimental evidence from other mammals showing that endocrine manipulation in utero results in cross sex behavioural anomalies in offspring.

For me, I think there are innate differences, and that for some people born with a cross sex brain living as the opposite gender means that they can present an identity which integrates those differences with societal expectations.

[descentia]

;

Edited by descentia on Sunday 31st March 22:03

[descentia]

'

Edited by descentia on Sunday 31st March 22:04

[Rivenink]

xjay1337 said:

But your example is a load of crap, frankly. You are comparing apples with oranges.

An asteroid landing on your house is something that is out of your control. Insurers call things like that "acts of god".
However engaging in a relationship with something is not an "act of god", but a "free-will choice".
Ergo I can categorically state that I would never engage in an act with either a trans-woman or a male.

Would you consider a male having sexual relations with a trans-woman a homosexual act?

[Davos123]

The Surveyor said:

To try and pull this back from the name-calling as this thread has previously been really informative rather than plain nasty....

Picking up on the Bigby closet-gay references, does that make homosexuality a social-construct as well?

Reading the thread it looks to me like the consensus is that concept of gender is based upon societies wider perspective of what makes a man different (or the same) as a woman, all linked but sitting separately to the biological spectrum of male and female sex. Sex is biological and gender is a social-construct.

Social views and tolerances are the determining factor over how comfortable people are to present in the way they feel is natural which is why we celebrate Pride events here in the UK, but that the same would have you arrested in other parts of the world. That doesn't mean there are fewer gay people born there, just many more closet-gay people. Having the freedom to come-out and be openly gay being linked to the same tolerances in society as being openly transgender, therefore is being gay a social construct in the same way we are being told transgender is?

As in, if sex is biological and gender is a social-construct, is being attracted to a person of the same sex biological and being gay also a social construct?

It's a good question. I would say who you are attracted to is a really complex mix of biology and social conditioning. Certainly if you look at the types of men and women who have typically been found attractive throughout history, it's changed a lot and that's nothing to do with biology.

The categorising and labelling of sexuality, which is tied to gender, a social construct, as you say, is merely attempting to convey people's sexual preferences based on all of those factors. It's a real blunt instrument for me and in a world with no oppression based on who you're attracted to, I think it would be redundant

[johnxjsc1985]

Rivenink said:

Would you consider a male having sexual relations with a trans-woman a homosexual act?

I am old and brought up with Janet and John books but even I know that what two consenting adults get up to is their business and nobody elses. The only comment I would make is why does everything have to be made so public these days.